OneMammoth
May 2, 09:11 AM
About as huge as most windows ones!
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
chrismacguy
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Theres also a lovely massive gaping hole in the Catholic "Invisible God who must exist because 1st Century Nomads who couldn't work out keeping toilet and food separate was a smart idea said he did" view of things:
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
mattwolfmatt
May 5, 10:43 AM
Every time it happens (I seem to get a string of dropped calls about once a month) I call ATT customer support. They talk as if this is unheard of and "we'll get this fixed right away". So far they have replaced my SIM card for free; they said the next step is a new phone.
I was hoping for a reduction in monthly price. We'll see.
I was hoping for a reduction in monthly price. We'll see.
ehoui
Apr 27, 05:59 PM
No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
kntgsp
Mar 18, 04:50 AM
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Napster and Limewire? What is this, 2002?
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
cambox
Apr 13, 12:20 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
RIP FCP
Born 2000 died 2011
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:07 PM
don't thank me, thank ct2k7 for saying just why islam is a threat to democracy.
Again, I didn't say that. But I thank you for being ignorant to my comments to your quotations made, from incomplete sources, showing your complete lack in want to participate.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
Except this doesn't work, since a sane Muslim man would not revolt.
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
The law is only accountable for Muslims.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
:rolleyes:
Again, I didn't say that. But I thank you for being ignorant to my comments to your quotations made, from incomplete sources, showing your complete lack in want to participate.
So, follow the local law unless a sane muslim man commits apostasy (then sentence him to death as under sharia law).
Except this doesn't work, since a sane Muslim man would not revolt.
follow local law unless someone insults the name of muhammad or who is critical of islam.
The law is only accountable for Muslims.
so right there, we've gotten rid of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
:rolleyes:
!� V �!
Apr 9, 09:11 PM
I agree with another commenter regarding removal of default applications i.e. Game Centre, Weather. I believe you can deactivate YouTube via system preferences and it hides the application, why not the same for other default apps.
beaster
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
ciTiger
Apr 28, 07:57 AM
Growth 187.9 %... LOL
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
Slurpy2k8
Apr 9, 03:48 AM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
I really hope you're joking. There's quite a few games on the appstore with comparable graphics, yet also with great gameplay to boot- unlike the tech demo that infinityblade is.
I really hope you're joking. There's quite a few games on the appstore with comparable graphics, yet also with great gameplay to boot- unlike the tech demo that infinityblade is.
theheyes
May 2, 05:10 PM
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
G58
Nov 7, 03:39 PM
Or because it's an interesting debate that engages many minds in varying aspects of the possibilities.
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:20 PM
I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:16 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
Bingo, and the only people claiming that it's a Tivo killer have probably never owned a Tivo.
chrismacguy
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Theres also a lovely massive gaping hole in the Catholic "Invisible God who must exist because 1st Century Nomads who couldn't work out keeping toilet and food separate was a smart idea said he did" view of things:
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:54 PM
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
skunk
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.It's good to hear that, unlike anybody else, you have a reason for your stance. Otherwise we might have to put you down as "intellectually lazy", too.
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:13 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:28 PM
Hate to say it, but I agree... I've got an old P4/2.8 running MCE2005 with a TV tuner and while not outputting the highest quality video, it's fulfilling the role of what I want in my living room; namely, a digital recording device for TV content that can also play back DVDs and downloaded content. It'd be a plus if I actually used the computer but I'm a Mac man suffering the Windows solution for something that Apple hasn't fully provided me yet...
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
